You are on page 1of 4

 The Dean of St.

Asaph, who had published a


pamphlet on the principles of government
 Erskine was instructed to defend the Dean at the
Shropshire Assizes in the summer of 1784.
 Now it so happened that at that time the Judges had a
wrong notion of the law of libel. They held that the
question of libel or no libel was for the Judge and not
for the jury; and the only question for the jury was
whether the pamphlet was published. This state of
the law made it difficult for Erskine to defend the
Dean
 But he was so successful with, the jury that, despite
the Judge’s direction, they did not give a simple
verdict of guilty. The foreman said: "We find him
guilty of publishing only.“
 The judge was not prepared to accept that verdict
and said to the jury: "You must explain that, one way
or the other." But Erskine then took the bold and
unusual course of himself asking the jury: "Is the
word ‘only’ to stand as part of the verdict?" The
foreman said: "Certainly".
 Erskine: "I insist that the verdict shall be recorded."
 Buller, J: "Then the verdict must be misunderstood: let me
understand the jury."
 Erskine: "The jury do understand their verdict."
 Buller, J. ‘Sir, I will not be interrupted."
 Erskine: "Istand here as an advocate for a brother citizen,
and I desire that the word ‘only’ mdy be recorded."
 Buller J: "Sit down, Sir. Remember your duty, or I shall be
obliged to proceed in another manner" (which was a broad
hint that he would be obliged to commit him for contempt,
but Erskine replied).
 Erskine: "Your Lordship may proceed in what manner lie
thinks fit: I know my duty as well as your Lordship knows
yours. I shall not alter my conduct."
 The Judge gave in. He did not commit Erskine
and eventually the verdict was entered in the
form: "Guilty of publishing, but whether a libel or
not we do not find." Afterwards, on a hearing
before Lord Mansfield in London, the pamphlet
was held to be no libel and the Dean was
acquitted.
 There was such an outcry about the state of the
law as the Judges supposed it to be, that
Parliament in 1792, in Fox’s Libel Act, declared
that the Judges were wrong, and that the
question of libel or no libel was for the jury and
not for the Judge. Parliament said that the law
had always been so, despite what the Judges had
said about it. This was one of the great steps in
establishing the freedom of the press in England,
and it was largely due to the conduct of Erskine
in the case of the Dean of St. Asaph.

You might also like